Indiana Jones 5 officially announced

[Lightning]

Say what you will about Indy 4, but if we’d never had that move, we’d never have learned that climbing inside a refrigerator is how you survive a nuclear attack!

only if it's lead lined for superior insulation!

 

[Solo4114]

I have an old skool leather jacket from the early 80's that's not even worse for wear. A couple others from the 1950's that show its age in appearance but are solid as can be. The only leather jackets that wore out from cheap materials or shoddy craftsmanship are from the 90's and on. Adding to that I still have Levi's from the 80's I still wear. So yes, technically in five decades time I'm still wearing the same pants and jacket.

Yeah, it's the liners to jackets that wear out, not the leather, as long as you take decent care of it. Although, admittedly, it also depends heavily on the type of leather. I had one of the old Wested lambskin leather jackets. It was great, super comfy, but the leather was super easy to beat up. It didn't last that long.

Got a Flight Suits goatskin version, and that thing is a frickin' tank.

Before that, I had an LL Bean bomber jacket and the leather is still in good shape, but the liner is destroyed.

I'd also say that as budgets for tent pole productions have sky rocketed the studios (and their execs) have become more cautious. They've become less willing to take risks when it cost 8 - 9 figures to produce a movie these days. So they fall back on what has worked in the past thinking that it would still work today. That and jump on the band wagon whenever one studio decides to take a chance and produce an original hit, all of the other studios (including the one that took the chance) now try to copy that success thinking that's what people want to see. Of course, this has been done for ages since at least the '60s & '70s when disaster movies were all the rage. Then Star Wars came out and every studio wanted to make their own Star Wars movie.

The unwillingness to take risks is absolutely what's behind franchise films being the focus.

Also, remember that year -- I think it was 1989 -- that there were, like, 4 "underwater" movies? The Abyss, Leviathan, Deep Star 6, and Lords of the Deep. It's like one studio exec got wind of another and was like "WE GOTTA MAKE OUR OWN UNDERWATER MOVIE!!"

I totally agree about the whole business model being outdated.

But the franchise itself still carries a ton of weight, whether it should or not. We're quick to point out that a rehashed 'Indy' won't make huge profits anymore . . . but without the Indy name it would probably do even worse.

The franchise is the new version of the star. In the 1990s people would go see anything with Al Pacino or Harrison Ford or Tom Cruise. It wasn't just because of their faces, it was because those actors had established track records of fronting good projects at the time. Their choice to do a movie was a tacit endorsement from them. And their endorsement was an indicator of where the budget & crew & other cast members ranked in the Hollywood pecking order. When a project got an endorsement from one of those heavy-hitting stars in the 1990s, it attracted more resources & good actors & crew like gravity.


Nowadays the franchise is the star. People don't say "Harrison Ford is in this so it's probably not too bad." They say "It's an Indy movie so it's probably not too bad." The studio has "invested" an entry of a valuable franchise on this movie.

The Indy franchise will survive for now. The real question is what happens when it stops being Ford himself. Franchise films in general will get people to show up. Or at least, that's the lesson the studios are learning from Shang Chi (Marvel, if not necessarily its own franchise yet) and Bond.

So, yeah, you're gonna see franchise entries and reboots and remakes and the like unless and until that model falls on its face.

 

[Jamesfett]

Say what you will about Indy 4, but if we’d never had that move, we’d never have learned that climbing inside a refrigerator is how you survive a nuclear attack!

Spoiler: Spoiler Alert

Kind of like time travel. I know some seem to be okay with this but I don't think it belongs in an Indy movie.

Honestly the "Aliens" in KOTCS are more likely.

Why can't he go after Atlantis. Think of the fun they could have had with it.

It's underwater, but has places that are dry with air. All the fun you could have with a mystical, lost city of Atlantis.

Spoiler: Spoiler Alert

Na, time travel and Aliens skulls are better.

I saw Raiders 36 times in the theater over the year it was in our local theater during my 4th/5th grade year.

Should have stopped at LC.

 

[kamandi]

I just saw the new Bond movie. I'm beyond livid. I will never watch another film or TV show where the name Phoebe Waller-Bridge appears.

 

[Lightning]

Why can't he go after Atlantis. Think of the fun they could have had with it.

He already found Atlantis. And the video game is so well regarded that they would never overwrite it.

 

[Riceball]

Indy probably buys his clothes bespoke from a tailor. Super easy to do in the 1930s, and still a thing in the 60s. They just pull out his patterns on file and make more. Same with the Jacket, since the jacket details change slightly every movie we know he's buying new ones when the old ones wear out.

edit: his shirt in the 1960s scenes doesn't have the pleats going down the front but the shirt in the WWII flashback does.

But could he continue to afford to do that on his college professor's salary and whatever he makes as an archaeologist (which is likely not a whole hell of a lot),? During the '30s & '40s, probably but by the '60s and '70s? I'm not so sure, not unless he's taking regular trips to Hong Kong or other parts of Asia to get his clothes made.

 

[Bigdaddy]

...not unless he's taking regular trips to Hong Kong or other parts of Asia to get his clothes made.

Funny you should mention that...

 

[batguy]

Meh.

With old retired Indy, I'm willing to grant him a certain amount of wealth without a specific explanation.

The dude spent his life breaking into ancient temples and coming out with 10-lb chunks of gold.

Even in the old movies he never seemed to be short of cash or motivated by it. He's not Han Solo. He never was.

 

[harrisonp]

He has also worked for the GOVT through multiple eras, maybe he has grants or some kind of pension from them.

 

[cboath]

I'd also say that as budgets for tent pole productions have sky rocketed the studios (and their execs) have become more cautious. They've become less willing to take risks when it cost 8 - 9 figures to produce a movie these days. So they fall back on what has worked in the past thinking that it would still work today. That and jump on the band wagon whenever one studio decides to take a chance and produce an original hit, all of the other studios (including the one that took the chance) now try to copy that success thinking that's what people want to see. Of course, this has been done for ages since at least the '60s & '70s when disaster movies were all the rage. Then Star Wars came out and every studio wanted to make their own Star Wars movie.

The flip side of that is frequently it's their own damn fault. When you see stories like WB spent 250M on just advertising for Justice League on top of 200M+ to make, i have zero sympathy for them.

Those budgets skyrocketed because of them in the first place. They don't care about making things good, just packing in as many names as possible in the hopes that the names will draw viewers. That's the thinking that gets you Batman and Robin. Who's how now? Clooney, get him. This guy O'Donnell, is the new hot thing, get him for robin. Mr Freeze, lets get arnold he always packs 'em in, etc, etc. That was probably well over half the damn budget there.

I mean, you can absolutely make things cheaper than they are they just refuse to. Simply put, i think a number of high end actors would haven take a smaller up front for a certain percentage. I think that happened to an extent with the first Avengers. Then it explodes and they owe RDJ 50M. Afterwards, studios no longer want to do that. They want to reap every cent of profit for themselves. However, in the current climate I don't know that that would fly right now. In light of the Scarlett Johanson case, streaming, and pandemic i'd wager more stars want a high up from and still a percentage.

There seems to no interest from studios on something that'll cost 50M to make and take in 400M at the box office. That's still a 300% profit to the studio, but it's not a big enough payoff for them. They're all searching for that next Avengers or Avatar that blows all expectations out of the water and rakes in insane profits. That's not running a business, it's a gambling addiction It's probably driven by stockholders, etc, where all they care about is how much they make at the end of the year.

 

[Riceball]

The flip side of that is frequently it's their own damn fault. When you see stories like WB spent 250M on just advertising for Justice League on top of 200M+ to make, i have zero sympathy for them.

Those budgets skyrocketed because of them in the first place. They don't care about making things good, just packing in as many names as possible in the hopes that the names will draw viewers. That's the thinking that gets you Batman and Robin. Who's how now? Clooney, get him. This guy O'Donnell, is the new hot thing, get him for robin. Mr Freeze, lets get arnold he always packs 'em in, etc, etc. That was probably well over half the damn budget there.

I mean, you can absolutely make things cheaper than they are they just refuse to. Simply put, i think a number of high end actors would haven take a smaller up front for a certain percentage. I think that happened to an extent with the first Avengers. Then it explodes and they owe RDJ 50M. Afterwards, studios no longer want to do that. They want to reap every cent of profit for themselves. However, in the current climate I don't know that that would fly right now. In light of the Scarlett Johanson case, streaming, and pandemic i'd wager more stars want a high up from and still a percentage.

There seems to no interest from studios on something that'll cost 50M to make and take in 400M at the box office. That's still a 300% profit to the studio, but it's not a big enough payoff for them. They're all searching for that next Avengers or Avatar that blows all expectations out of the water and rakes in insane profits. That's not running a business, it's a gambling addiction It's probably driven by stockholders, etc, where all they care about is how much they make at the end of the year.

The thing about modern (big) businesses is that it's not enough to just simply make a profit, they need to make a lot of profit so that they have more than enough money around for funding several projects at one time. Then on top of that, and probably the biggest factor, is that they're beholden to stockholders and a board of directors from whom more profits mean higher share costs. And before you start complaining about big wigs and their stocks, big companies doing well benefits the little people like us. Not just in terms of employment but even if you don't buy any shares of stocks in these companies you still benefit if you have any investments like a (ROTH) IRA, 401k, mutual fund, or any other investment of that sort because they all invest in stocks to make you money.

 

[cboath]

The thing about modern (big) businesses is that it's not enough to just simply make a profit, they need to make a lot of profit so that they have more than enough money around for funding several projects at one time. Then on top of that, and probably the biggest factor, is that they're beholden to stockholders and a board of directors from whom more profits mean higher share costs. And before you start complaining about big wigs and their stocks, big companies doing well benefits the little people like us. Not just in terms of employment but even if you don't buy any shares of stocks in these companies you still benefit if you have any investments like a (ROTH) IRA, 401k, mutual fund, or any other investment of that sort because they all invest in stocks to make you money.

I think that's an excuse they put out.

Anyone, and i mean anyone, with a shred of business sense knows you don't put nearly 500M into a flick before it's released and think you're going to make a cent, or even make your money back. Possibly worse was Costner's water world that predated JL by what? 15-20 years? and that was rumored to have cost 200, before advertising.

The problem with their logic is that the logic is you have to spend big to win big. This is the movie industry. The number of flicks that have hit that billion dollar mark is very very small. You spend 200M just to make a movie these days - which happens frequently, you have to have the flick make 400M to break even, and that before you toss in advertising, etc. I'd be interested to know how much on average a studio spends on marketing for a 200M movie.

Someone mentioned Marvel. Marvel isn't trying to make every little penny to finance a smaller Shang Chi. They can sink a pretty penny into Shang Chi because they've built a track record of building out high end product. They can spend 200M on that because they know they'll make their money back on it at the absolute worst. Granted that was pre-pandemic guarantee, but still. It took in around 400 world wide week 1 i think. That's close to break even right there. Marvel isn't scared to produce lower tiered stuff that's 'risky'. If they were, the P4 slate wouldn't be what it is. They're investing heavily on properties that vast majority of their audience doesn't know a shred about (Shang Chi, Eternals, Blade). DC wouldn't sink that level of money into Cyborg because of that 'risk' and he was in both JL movies. He's a much more known quantity to that audience.

Even if those big budget flicks are made to finance the others for studios, they're not taking risks on those either. Saw 17, Purge 12, etc.

The thing is chances ARE being taken these days. Just not on the big screen. Things that'd never see the light of day in a theater: Stargirl, Titans, Doom Patral, Agatha, Foundation, LoTR ancilliary material, Wheel of Time, etc, etc. You've got HBO's, Amazon's, and Apples sinking in a boatload of cash into new things. The question is, once they're established enough in their own minds do they continue to do it. Right now, there's something in it for them. Are they still going to be willing to take those risks once they view themselves as 'established'? HBO, i think that's a yes becuase they've done it along time, the rest, too soon to say.

 

[Captain Dunsel]

Why is he wearing the exact same clothes in every movie? Those pants and shirt would have been destroyed 20 times over by now. Did he buy 20 pairs of each in 1934? Leather doesn't even hold up that well when you wear it every day. Where is he getting his jackets? It's not even a popular style sold in stores.
Shouldnt he be wearing bellbottoms and butterfly collars by now?

While some may say it’s because Indy has become an absurd “cartoon character”, along the lines of Charlie Brown, I disagree.

I find it totally believable that he would wear the exact same pants, boots, hat, shirt, belts, jacket, etc. every time he has “an adventure”, without change, decade after decade after decade.

Why, I put on the same exact outfit—that I have been wearing since 1987—whenever I go on adventures downtown. Why change what works?? And work it does ladies and gentlemen…work it does…

Here’s a picture of me in my customer tailored, 34 year old, “adventure outfit” that I took last week.

 

[robstyle]

You guys are still going on about a fictional characters clothing?

My real world decades old clothing.
About 1984 lifting a 7/11 sign but don't recall why, and the same clothes down to the boots. And the jacket that I hand sewn alternate sleeves and a backing on from a pop 80's jacket.

 

[Axlotl]

Tell us about the time you were shot in the shoulder then dragged behind a truck then rode a submarine for 200 miles in those clothes.
How did you get them back after you left them in the submarine base where you traded them for a Nazi uniform?

 

[harrisonp]

He lashed them to the periscope of course!

 

[Sluis Van Shipyards]

Has it occurred to anyone that he has multiple leather jackets/hats?

 

[batguy]

Has it occurred to anyone that he has multiple leather jackets/hats?

Who would do that?

Haven't you been wearing the same pair of jeans for your entire adult life? And the same pair of tennis shoes? Am I the only one?

 

[harrisonp]

I want to see Indy poop. If he has to buy new clothes then obviously he’s using the bathroom sometimes.

 

[Psab keel]

I want to see Indy poop. If he has to buy new clothes then obviously he’s using the bathroom sometimes.

Forget treasure hunting! I want to watch Indy do his taxes and remortgage his house!